You do not need to know these to bring a claim, but they explain why solicitors ask the questions they do.
Claimant succeeded
[2026] UKSC 5·2026·Appeal decision
A child left profoundly disabled by negligence at birth was refused 'lost years' damages for earnings she would have made in the years her injury cut from her life, because a 1982 Court of Appeal case barred such awards to young children. The Supreme Court (Lady Rose dissenting) overruled that rule and sent the case back for the lost-years loss to be assessed.
Claimants injured as young children whose life expectancy has been shortened can now claim for earnings in the 'lost years', on the same principles as adults. This can add substantially to catastrophic injury awards.
Claim failed
[2024] UKSC 1·2024·Appeal decision
Three families sought damages for psychiatric injury after watching a relative die from a condition that doctors had negligently failed to diagnose. The Supreme Court (Lord Burrows dissenting) held that doctors do not owe relatives a duty to protect them from the shock of witnessing a patient's death or medical crisis.
Relatives who develop a psychiatric illness from witnessing a loved one's death caused by medical negligence generally cannot claim as secondary victims. Their remedies are limited to the Fatal Accidents Act dependency and bereavement claims.
Claim failed£1.4M
[2021] UKSC 21·2021·Appeal decision
A GP negligently failed to arrange proper testing, so a woman wrongly believed she did not carry the haemophilia gene and went on to have a son with haemophilia who also had autism. The Supreme Court held the GP was liable only for the haemophilia-related costs, because the purpose of the advice was to guard against that risk, not the unrelated risk of autism.
Damages are limited to losses falling within the scope of the duty the doctor undertook. Even where negligence clearly led to a child's birth, unrelated conditions that the advice was never meant to address are not recoverable.
Claimant succeeded
[2018] UKSC 50·2018·Appeal decision
A man with a head injury was told by an A&E receptionist he would wait four to five hours, left after 19 minutes, and collapsed at home with a brain bleed. The Supreme Court held the hospital owed him a duty not to give misleading information about waiting times and that his leaving did not break the chain of causation.
An NHS trust's duty of care in A&E starts at the reception desk, and wrong information given by non-clinical staff can found a negligence claim.
Claimant succeeded
[2016] UKPC 4·2016·Appeal decision
A patient with appendicitis waited hours for a CT scan and surgery; by the time his appendix was removed it had ruptured and sepsis had damaged his heart and lungs. The Privy Council held the hospital was liable because its delay materially contributed to the injury, even though some harm would have occurred anyway.
Where negligent delay makes an existing condition worse in a cumulative way, a claimant need not prove the whole injury would have been avoided, only that the delay made a more-than-negligible contribution. This is often relied on in sepsis and delayed-treatment claims.
Claimant succeeded
[2015] UKSC 11·2015·Appeal decision
A diabetic mother of small stature was not told of the roughly 10 per cent risk of shoulder dystocia in a vaginal birth or offered a caesarean, and her son was born with cerebral palsy. The Supreme Court held doctors must tell patients about material risks and reasonable alternatives, replacing the old doctor-knows-best approach to consent.
Since Montgomery, a claim can succeed where a patient was not warned of a risk that a reasonable person in their position would consider significant, even if some doctors would not have mentioned it. It underpins most modern consent-based negligence claims.